The summary judgement only addressed one of eight counts.
Although it was the bulk of the charges, I'm pretty sure there were seven other fraud charges that were a part of the case and the final disgorgement award.
Then there were the discrepancies highlighted by Barbara Jones in her letter to the court as requested by the court just before the close of evidentiary hearing.
It's also been left open for review by Judge Engoron as Barbara Jones continues to monitor the Trump Organisation.
The difference is, you can't heavily edit what I say to suit your misogyny except in your own head.
Why couldn't you bring yourself to admit all the facts that I listed earlier, starting with 'a civil fraud trial against Trump took place'?
Why did you feel the need to edit that in your head as if the list was merely my unsubstantiated opinions?
If you had any sense you'd maybe see an argument for your own cause in that list, rather than trying to make it disappear, or patronise and belittle me.
I'd continue trying to help you out, but why should I play nicely after the above post?
You have no argument and I'm not going to give you one to misuse given your lack of integrity.
Like the privileged from birth, ex-president, multi-billionaire businessman, adjudicated financial fraud and adjudicated rapist who you call the King, Donald Trump?
How does it get more upper class and corrupt without being an actual bastard king, or dictator which he's clearly greedy for?
Do you really think a diet of burgers and verbal trash diarrhoea makes him an honest, working class man?
Perhaps you're muddling being of a class and having class.
We tend to think of victims as individuals who have been traumatised and ruined, so this is a good spin.
However, financial fraud is still financial fraud regardless of whether individuals were directly and obviously traumatised, or ruined.
We also don't know how things may have turned out had Trump not committed financial fraud, nor the consequences had something gone horribly wrong and Trump couldn't pay back the loans because he lied about his ability to do so. Pulling off a scam without obvious damage is not the same as responsible, ethical and law abiding business practise.
Certainly, The ex-president's fraudulent behaviour has had an impact on how NY business and the presidency is perceived. That scepticism and distrust in the public domain would likely be far greater had the US shrugged it's shoulders and said, "Meh, that's how we roll."
But hey, let's see 'how you roll' works on appeal given Team Trump's less than astute lawyering has already been rejected - assuming Trump can raise the cash, or financial backing to rehash the same arguments having been adjudicated a fraud.
And let's face it, even when there is a direct victim, as in the case of Trump being an adjudicated rapist, you don't appear to give a flying feck.
You can't really have it both ways and expect to have any credibility with the grown-ups.
If you don't know how your own judicial system works, how can you decide what is right, or wrong within it?
My two questions are: where is Trump going to get the money from to appeal and on what grounds is he going to appeal?
If he goes to a five judge panel and rehashes the arguments Judge Engoron has already rejected, they will likely be considered to have no merit again. Team Trump hasn't brought any particularly astute material to the table as yet as far as I can see.
Bear in mind, Judge Engoron bypassed his original summary judgement ruling to liquidate the Trump Organisation by handing that power to the independent monitor Barbara Jones, should she see fit to do so in the future. That might have been their ace card for appeal and it no longer exists.
If Team Trump opts for attacking the judge as you have, the appellate court will likely see that for what it is.
Have you any idea how he's going to stump up the $455M+interest to be held in order to appeal, never mind pay lawyers? He has stated he has $400M cash, there's $27M left in his campaign funds that he's been questionably using to pay lawyers, he has lost his business licence, he has an independent monitor overseeing the Trump Organisation who would have to approve liquidating assets and withdrawing funds, he has the first of his criminal trials starting in about five weeks with it's own resource needs...and as far as I know, he has yet to stump up the $83.3M+interest to appeal the second defamation suit half way through his 30 day window to appeal.
If the RNC is foolish enough to install Lara Trump as it's leader so Trump can milk it for his legal costs, there'll be no campaign funds left for other Republicans. How is that going to work with the election less than nine months away?
I'm not sure expecting people like yourself to pay his costs, or selling gold coloured trainers at $399 a pop at the Sneaker Conference (where the jeers drowned out the cheers) are going to make much of a dent in the $500M+ he needs to appeal.
Given Trump posted the full $5+ to appeal the first E. Jean Carroll defamation verdict, what's the chances of a company backing a 10% bond given Trump is an adjudicated financial fraud with a history of not paying what he owes? I'm guessing Barbara Jones would have to guarantee the excess $450M+, but is she likely to do that if there aren't likely successful grounds for appeal? Doesn't she have a duty to manage Trump Organisation assets effectively and appropriately?
It seems to me that there's a lot of talk about Trump appealing everything, but little about how.
The US constitution has this thing called the Separation of Powers which has three branches: 'legislative' where the politicians make the laws; 'executive' where the president executes the law; and 'judicial' where lawyers and judges interpret the law.
The reason that the power is split into three branches is so no one person, or group has total power. It's designed so power is not misused and democracy is maintained in the interests of serving the people.
Politics is not a bunch of idiots bitchin' about each other, power grabbing for their own gratification/profit, or showing off revenge porn in public in a bid to score points.
Whilst I'm more than interested in the outcome of the Supreme Court's consideration of 14/3, this is off topic. I will reserve my own personal opinion about Trump's disqualification, or otherwise until I've heard the legal arguments.
This blog is about the verdict in the NY civil fraud case.
Can we agree that there was a civil fraud case against Trump, his associates and the Trump Organisation?
Can we agree that there was a verdict in this civil case?
Can we agree that msm reported the verdict truthfully, except for some inaccuracies/confusion in the first rush to get the news in the public domain?
Can we agree that I relayed the verdict truthfully, fairly accurately and corrected myself where I made mistakes?
Can we agree that the disgorgement amounted to $364M, some $355M against Trump and the Trump Organisation, $4M each against Don jr and Eric Trump and $1M each against Alan Weiselberg and the other associate who's name escapes me? Can we agree that this is most of the $370M the prosecution requested, but not all?
Can we agree that when Judge Arthur Engoron made his initial summary judgement he ruled that there was persistent, widespread fraud in the Trump Organisation and that it should be dissolved? Can we agree that Team Trump moved to appeal the dissolution ruling?
Can we agree Judge Engoron's final ruling bypassed the immediate dissolution of the Trump Organisation and instead extended the tenure of the independent monitor Barbara Jones for a further three years, as well as instituting a compliance officer for the same period? Can we agree that the power to dissolve the Trump Organisation has been transferred to Barbara Jones should she deem it necessary in the future?
Can we agree that in not calling for the immediate dissolution of the Trump Organisation, Team Trump's appeal to stop the dissolution is no longer relevant?
Can we agree that Judge Engoron revoked Trump's business licence for three years and Don jr's and Erics for two, rather than issuing a lifetime ban from conducting business in NY as the prosecution requested?
Is there anything you would like me to explain out of that lot?
There are perhaps other consequences to this verdict.
I believe Trump has 30 days to appeal the verdict, so that will take us up to mid-March and will use Trump's resources.
Having been found civilly liable for persistent fraud in his Trump Organisation, his first criminal case starting on the 25th March involves 34 counts of falsifying business records in the same. A civil liability for persistent fraud does not bode well for the trial outcome of these felony charges.
Further to that, the subject and timing of the alleged felony fraud suggests an element of election interference - Trump didn't want the electorate to know that he had sex with Stormy Daniels around the time of his son's birth in case it lost him votes in 2016.
After this criminal case, Trump may face both a state and a federal trial relating to election interference allegations in 2020.
I realise many people were of the opinion that the DC conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election case should have been the first to be tried and I understand why, but it looks to me like each case is naturally leading into and supporting the next. That can't very well be blamed on a justice department grand plan given it was Team Trump who created the delays in the DC federal case with interlocutry motions and appeals.
Of course, it's still possible for Trump to be a convicted felon before the next election and it's still possible for the DC trial to be over before the same.
A delayed DC trial isn't necessarily in Trump's best interests if it's ongoing at the peak of presidential campaigning (assuming Trump has any money to campaign), but again, he created the delay.
Careful, you are begining to sound like TenofCups.
I'm sorry if I offended you by pointing out how your post looked to me, or what it reminded me of.
Might I point out that you have no idea about people ignoring Tulefell's posts. People may read without commenting, or commenting immediately after reading.
Btw, no one can ask another member to leave this public space.
If someone wishes to analyse one of my comments, I'm big enough and ugly enough to respond as I see fit.
If you read Chat's comment it explains that Trump signed a Deed of Conservation and Preservation on the property.
Having a choice of two possibilities before he legally opted for one doesn't mean he can legally use both options at the same time, particularly after he bindingly opted for one.
Like much of Team Trump's clutching at straws, your argument is frivolous.
It's possible that Trump won't be able to appeal the civil fraud verdict even if he has some non-frivolous basis to do so. Judging by the E. Jean Carroll case, Trump et al will have to deposit the disgorgement amount totalling $364 + interest according to NY civil law before appealing.
As he deposited the full $5M+ to appeal the first E. Jean Carroll case, it's likely he won't be able to access a company to back a 10% bond deposit, particularly given his history of financial fraud and non-payment.
The full amount of $83M+ from the second defamation trial and $364M+ from the civil fraud case wil total in excess of $500M, more than the available $400M cash Trump has stated he has.
That means, in order to appeal both verdicts he must either sell assets which will have to be approved by the independent monitor Barbara Jones, or he'll have to raise the money from other sources.
As to the former, I'm going to hazard a guess that Barbara Jones has an obligation to approve liquidation of assets to cover moneys owed, but not neccesarily for throwing good money after bad. I imagine retired federal judge Barbara Jones has an obligation to manage assets prudently: unless Team Trump can justify realistic grounds for appeal to her, she perhaps can't approve releasing funds for frivolous expenditure.
With respect to the latter, there have been questions hanging over Trump's use of campaign funds for legal fees, plus there's very little left in the coffers for actual campaigning. Without a massive influx of funds from his supporters, many of whom probably struggle to cover their own expenses, something has to give. Trump is now between a rock and a hard place trying to juggle his legal and campaign commitments both financially and with respect to hours in the day.
There's certainly no news yet about Trump appealing the second E. Jean Carroll case, never mind this civil fraud verdict.
That's why I don't think disinformation pantomime posts are the logical, or fun balance to factual information and reasoned discussion in a time of existential crisis.
I'm listening to what Tulefell has to say and I'm grateful for her public contributions.
She is not alone.
If we only discuss our thoughts with people of the same opinions we are never challenged and cannot progress.
By dismissing and undermining the ' slightly interested minority' as irrelevant, you are not only discriminating against that group (along with the other groups you have defined), but you are excuding those potential 'allies' who support Tulefell's contributions and an ethical practise movement.
Trying to isolate Tulefell from others by telling her she is unsupported and alone, trying to tell her what she feels, trying to offer yourself as her saviour, reminds me of how an abusive relationship is manipulated into being.
I'm not sure if you misunderstand the word 'balance', or have just misused it.
This thread is reporting the details with respect to the verdict in the NY civil fraud trial against Trump, his associates and the Trump Organisation.
Relaying information about a recent event is not 'unbalanced' if the intention is to relay information about a recent event.
A youtube short bitchin' about other people, complete with pantomime gnarly facial expressions is the Trumpist '...but what about..?' technique of redirection and obsfucation. I like to keep my Trump-related blogs on topic for this very reason.
If you wish to put the blog topic in some kind of context, maybe you could compare the legal proceedings and outcome with another NY civil fraud case, explaining where you think the similarities, or differences lie with respect to the application of the law.
I would also consider speculation about the potential consequences of the verdict as on topic, such as whether appealing the verdict is a viable option, or how this verdict may impact on Trump's upcoming criminal trials.
The independent monitor isn't permanant, but the two-tiered oversight team including retired judge Barbara Jones was appointed for three years.
By not revoking Trump et al's business licences, Judge Engoron has avoided the dissolution of the Trump Organisation and that particular opportunity to appeal the verdict.
It has been reported that the oversight team would be able to decide if such steps were necessary in the future, however.
Like I said, the Trump Organisation is not expected to last very long. It will more than likely have to be liquidated to pay for fines and lawyers.
Eric a Don jr. are banned from doing business in NY state for two years.
The prosecution had asked for a lifetime ban for Donald Trump and the revocation of business licences, but Judge Engoron ruled that a permanant monitor over the Trump organisation was sufficient.
I suppose the Trump organisation, or Trump's freedom isn't expected to last all that long.
I struck a deal: I'm having the short people over for a slumber party in exchange for some minor DIY tasks (20 minutes work that will make my life much easier.)
I have no idea how much my daughter and son-in-law are going to spend on lunch and whatever else they decide to do, but it's a well-earned break several times over.
I have a couple of days of crafts, cooking and other activities lined up, during which time my youngest grandson will regularly break out into zoomies with the joy of it all. Fortunately, my eldest is very adept at keeping him from hurt, or harm.
I've been up since stupid o'clock as I still have a little preparation left to do. It's going to be a long day ending with a good walk up and down the mountain before bedtime. Getting them out on a cold, dark and possibly rainy night takes a little persuasion/bribery/shameless psychological manipulation, but at least one of them will be asleep before midnight as a result. Over-tired ADHD sibling squabbling into the early hours is best avoided, I find.
online today!jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,979)
The Verdict
The summary judgement only addressed one of eight counts.Although it was the bulk of the charges, I'm pretty sure there were seven other fraud charges that were a part of the case and the final disgorgement award.
Then there were the discrepancies highlighted by Barbara Jones in her letter to the court as requested by the court just before the close of evidentiary hearing.
It's also been left open for review by Judge Engoron as Barbara Jones continues to monitor the Trump Organisation.
I think I've got that right.